Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Practical Philosophy » When does a human being gain moral value? » 5/01/2018 4:18 pm

RomanJoe wrote:

I'm in a similar boat. Often I find fideism to be a healthy default position for a skeptic insofar as it can preserve your sanity, and in my experience, stave off nihilistic thoughts. What do you think, among human beings regularly considered morally valuable, is a condition for their moral value?

I'm re-reading L'atome, le singe et le cannibale from Jean-Michel Maldamé. There's a whole chapter on morality, and why, as humans, we have things to do concerning morality, where animals don't.

Practical Philosophy » When does a human being gain moral value? » 4/30/2018 2:58 pm

RomanJoe wrote:

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

For me, at conception. Why? Prudence. Since I don't know, I believe that it should be respected at least from the earliest stages of its existence.

So do you view abortion more as negligence than murder, considering that you're not sure whether or not the embryo or fetus is morally valuable but--prudence demands--we treat it as such to avoid the possibility of infringing upon a human being's right to life?

I still view it as murder, but out of pure fideism, from the teachings of the Church - as I still haven't found the time to fully study the question.

Practical Philosophy » When does a human being gain moral value? » 4/30/2018 11:37 am

For me, at conception. Why? Prudence. Since I don't know, I believe that it should be respected at least from the earliest stages of its existence.

Chit-Chat » What was your red pill moment? » 4/19/2018 6:39 am

Reading Dawkins. Honestly. If you take him seriously, along his scientisticatheisticantitheistic pen pals, they're the best apologists FOR theism (after Rosenberg, I think).

Theoretical Philosophy » Atheist and laws of Physics » 4/18/2018 9:14 am

Well, first of, I'd have asked "Well, what is a law of physics? Is it an abstration? A mathematical formula? A behaviour?". I wouldn't say that it's contingent too fast, especially if I don't know what they're talking about.

Then you can ask them what it means "the law of physics exist". Ask them "what is matter", and alike.

There's no trap here. Honestly. The best discussion I have had with atheists are when I appear in a blank state, with genuine curiosity for their ideas.

"Atheism" per se is a negative position, and as such, makes little ontological commitment. You have to study and be curious as to what their positive claims are. ;)

(For my own part, I don't believe that physical laws exist at all. I think they're abstractions of powers. ^^)

Religion » Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) » 4/17/2018 8:55 am

In what way is this different from "the fact you believe God exists is not a proof that God exists"? Or "we naturally evolved to believe in God, therefore our belief in God is not necessarily warranted by our evolution"?
In other words, is there something new here, beside conflating epistemic and subject of belief?

In your text, replace "belief in God" by "belief in X", where X is anything. The argument doesn't change.

It's basically the EEAN reworded for a naturalistic stance.

Theoretical Philosophy » Specified geographical location as a requisite of causation? » 4/17/2018 7:18 am

surroundx wrote:

Frenchy holds to formal causation, whereas I see no reason to invoke formal cause. Which, depending upon what you take to be the relevant views, might not be so much a case of us debating which explanans is simpler, but rather whether there is an explanandum (that calls for an explanans) in the first place.

Correct. For you, the simplest explanation is going to be the correct one, but for me, you're trimming away too much.

Religion » Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) » 4/17/2018 4:19 am

Paraschis wrote:

What are people's thoughts on here about the newly emergent field of CSR? Many philosophers working in CSR have crafted novel religion-debunking arguments based on the field's findings, according to which CSR has shown that religious beliefs, being formed and sustained by evolutionary-adapted cognitive biases, for instance, are not epistemically justifiable.

For a most recent and high-quality volume on the subject which could also be useful as an introduction to the research and the debates over it, I would suggest Advances in Religion, Cognitive Science and Experimental Philosophy (2016). For the more religiously uncommitted amongst us, I would recommend A Natural History of Natural Theology: The Congnitive Science of Theology and Philosophy of Religion (2015), which deals with arguments relevant to classical theism, such as the cosmological argument(s). 

I don't see how you can make the assertion that "religious beliefs, being formed and sustained by evolutionary-adapted cognitive biases" to say that they are "not epistemically justifiable" to end with "novel religion-debunking arguments". What's new from that? I've given the books you quoted a read, but from what I found, nothing presented there is a "religion-debunking argument".

Theoretical Philosophy » Specified geographical location as a requisite of causation? » 4/17/2018 4:14 am

John West wrote:

Frenchy:

I've been focusing on surroundx, because I pretty much know how Thomists are going to reply to questions. I can't, however, let you off completely:

Nope, no "not at all", you're fueling my own mill here: how can two different things can be "identical" on some quality, respect or anything if they don't share something, e.g. have something in common?

At some point, I'll write more about blob nominalism. Until then, you should look into a variety called resemblance nominalism.

Yeup. I know about it. Though resemblance nominalism calls for resemblance relation, which, being a primer, is not analyzable. Best case I know of is by G. Rodriguez-Pereyra, Resemblance Nominalism : A Solution to the Problem of Universals. We can work with that if you want, JW; I don't mind going down that road, but it has many spikes to drive on.

(I guess you're also familiar with Jeffrey Grupp, Blob Theory: N-adic Properties Do Not Exist?)

John West wrote:

Scholastic philosophy is more or less a common sense philosophy, and Frenchy is a good scholastic. I know what rules he's playing by.

Be careful to not overestimate me, John. I'm not a scholastic per se, I just found that what I read from there appears to be the most coherent, the clearest, the simplest, most beautiful explanation and thus seems to be the right one; but it doesn't make me a philosopher for that. ^^' There are many points of scholasticism I'm ignorant about; and I've only read as far as my skeptical side pushed me to search for questions and sound philosophy.

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum